| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Henderson: I should like to proceed with my speech.
A definition of ancillary equipment would help the House. The debate is about where one draws the line on compensation. There is a clear distinction between nationalisation and confiscation on the one hand, and loss of business income, or even personal income, on the other. In terms of state action, one must distinguish between those two. If we accept that anyone who loses in any way from a decision in Parliament has a right to compensation, the list of persons and organisations applying for it will be limitless.
Everything we do affects somebody in some way. Signing up to the Maastricht treaty means that some people will say, "I am affected now and I will be affected in future." When we pass labour laws, some people will say that they are affected, and when we pass laws on health, some will say, "My business and my job are affected." The list is endless, and we would find it impossible to make any definitions. Parliament has said that compensation is automatic for nationalisation or confiscation in wartime, or when someone's home is demolished because of a road. There may be arguments about the amounts, but the principle is automatic.
The great danger with compensation for loss of business is that everyone will claim it. Furniture manufacturers who have to meet new safety requirements could say, "My business had to change and I had to invest in new equipment and diversify. I should get full compensation." There would be no claims in respect of the people who work for such manufacturers, but that is another matter.
Drug companies invest colossal amounts up front, thank goodness. In the light of scientific evidence, the House has to decide what is safe for the public, and sometimes drugs on which the companies have spent a great deal of money are no longer safe and have to be withdrawn. I cannot recall any substantial compensation to drug manufacturers.
The House has been passing building regulations and mine safety regulations for the best part of 150 years, but it has never been the policy of any Government to say that, if a business requires change or investment to meet new conditions, it will be entitled to full compensation. When building and fire safety regulations were rightly changed, there was no question of compensating every business that had to change as a result.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Henderson:
No, because I am time-limited.
I recognise that dealers and others will face a loss of business. That is unfortunate, but they are no different from businesses which in the past had to modify their operations because of parliamentary decisions.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham):
The hon. Gentleman will recall that we had a similar debate
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1099
Mr. Henderson:
The hon. Gentleman is not making a new point. Many businesses, such as the de-boners in the meat industry and companies involved in meat distribution, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) referred, have gone bust. Small sub-contractors to drug companies often go out of business because their expertise is linked to the manufacture of a drug that has been withdrawn. There are many examples of companies going out of business. I understand the difficulty of the companies that have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), but they are no different from other companies, and they are able to diversify.
I am no expert on guns or gun dealing--parliamentarians cannot be experts on everything--but I looked at some dealers' premises recently, and I noticed that some of them sell not only pistols but shotguns, rifles, fishing equipment and even England football strips. Therefore, not every dealer will go bust. There will be a change in their circumstances, but they must recognise the weight of public opinion to which the Government and Opposition have responded. People are saying, "Something must happen." We must take action to protect the public, and that action has consequences. People who have to hand in their guns, whether they are dealers or individuals, should receive adequate compensation.
It would be helpful if the Home Secretary would tell us what will be the sequence of events. The Opposition tabled amendment No. 13, which asks the Government to return to the House with the principles of a compensation scheme, so that we can debate them, and further debate some of the arguments that have been made today.
Mr. Henderson:
I will not give way.
The Government were reluctant to present such principles during proceedings on the Bill in Committee. The Government should realise that there is much confusion on matters such as what values will be set, who will set them, what an individual who disagrees with a valuation should do, and whether there will be a right of appeal. Many questions must be answered.
It is important to ban the use of pistols to the greatest possible extent--although we differ on that--so legislation must be passed quickly. That is why the Opposition have co-operated on procedural matters. But many issues remain unresolved. There are issues linked to airguns that must be settled. The Government should have been bound by the legislation to make further proposals.
On compensation, a wise path forward, perhaps in another place, would be for the Government to provide further information on general principles of compensation, although the details might be set out in secondary legislation. If the Home Secretary can accomplish that, he
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1100
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard):
Right hon. and hon. Members have spoken with force and with passion in this debate, and I understand and acknowledge the depth of their concerns. I shall do my best to reply to as many points as I can in what must now inevitably be a short speech, and I will endeavour to write to those whose points I fail to deal with in the next few minutes.
On 18 November we tabled a new money resolution to the Bill so as to allow hon. Members to table amendments and to debate the matter of compensation without a technical limit being imposed on the scope of those amendments and of that debate. I said then that the Government would listen to all the arguments before deciding on the scope of a compensation scheme. In a moment, I will explain our conclusions on that. Before doing so, however, I should like to deal with the substance of the amendments tabled and eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin).
As my hon. Friend knows, in discussing these matters I have always made it clear that a distinction must be made between paying compensation for guns and accessories and the question of wider business losses. As I said on Second Reading, so far as I am aware there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occur as a result of Government legislation, and I made it clear then that I could not give my hon. Friends comfort on that score. I fear that nothing that I have heard today has led me to alter that view.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) that the issue is not whether compensation should be paid. The Government are not presenting to Parliament a Bill which does not offer compensation. The difficult issue is determining where one draws the line--the point at which one either says, "This is a case in which, on all precedent, one must and should pay compensation", or, "However sympathetic one might be to those who will suffer loss in consequence of the legislation, on all precedent and on a proper analysis of the case, it does not justify compensation."
I think that the distinction between the two categories is clear. If the effect of Government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. That principle has been a part of English law for many years in relation to land and buildings which are, for example, the subject of compulsory purchase orders.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives):
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Howard:
If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I should like to make some progress in my explanation, and time is short.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |